to animals and then eating the animals. Singer settles on a standard of giving: at least 1% of net income (although he goes into more detail about how this percentage might increase as one's income increases). He justifies his decision by saying that, although we ought to give much more, it is not practical to demand much more, and trying to do so may turn people off from giving anything at all. Singer emphasizes the importance of being practical when it comes to getting as much money as possible to the poor, even if that means holding people to lower standards as a means of changing their habits. Singer's seven steps According to the author, there are several steps that one can take to become a part of the solution to end world poverty. The author asks the reader to calculate at least 1% of their income and then donate it. Singer further suggests taking steps to foster a culture of giving (using social networks while staying positive and avoiding the emotion of guilt due to cognitive dissonance). Singer goes on to offer other ways to promote a culture of giving. Singer maintains that the last, important step of donating is to feel good about making a difference. He argues that too much guilt may result in inaction, dooming the poor. Reception In a review for Barnes & Noble, George Scialabba writes, "Some of the most affecting pages in The Life You Can Save describe the low-tech, low-cost programs that have restored sight to a million people blinded by cataracts and have rescued many thousands of women and children from lives blighted by cleft palates or obstetric fistulas". Scialabba concludes: "For those willing to do more than [the] bare minimum, Singer has worked out a detailed chart specifying how much everyone at every income level should give... Is this unrealistic? Maybe. But if we don't do it, our 26th-century descendants will be heartily ashamed of us." Economist Paul Collier, writing in The Guardian, gave The Life You Can Save a mixed review, saying that "Singer is surely right" with regards to his arguments, but criticizing the book's focus on private charity and individual giving, rather than government policy. Christian Barry and Gerhard Øverland (both from the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics) describe in their book review in the Journal of Bioethical Inquiry the widespread acceptance for the notion